How Labour is using inheritance tax to push prime farmland into solar & wind farms and rewilding estates
THE RATIONALS
On 26 November 2025 Rachel Reeves will deliver her second Budget and decide whether to lock in — or finally soften — the inheritance-tax changes that are already forcing family farms onto the market.
One farmer could not wait to find out what she would do next.
The morning before her first Budget, John Charlesworth, a 78-year-old retired sheep and cattle farmer from Silkstone in South Yorkshire, took his own life. He had spent the preceding months in a state of mounting despair, telling his son Jonathan that the coming changes to agricultural inheritance tax would force the family to sell half the 200-acre farm his father had bought in the 1950s. “The only thing he talked about was inheritance tax,” Jonathan told the coroner. The inquest heard that Mr Charlesworth — a man with no recorded history of mental illness beyond the strain of nursing his late wife — believed suicide was the only way to spare his children a bill they could not pay. The coroner recorded a verdict of suicide and noted that his fears about the coming tax bill had been a significant contributory factor.
One heartbreaking Yorkshire tragedy does not make a policy failure, but it does rather concentrate the mind. From 6 April 2026 the 100 per cent relief from inheritance tax that has allowed family farms to pass from father to son (and, increasingly, to daughter) for the past forty years will be capped at £1 million of combined agricultural and business property value per person — £3 million at the very most for a married couple once the nil-rate bands are thrown in. Above that line the relief collapses to 50 per cent, creating an effective 20 per cent tax on the excess, payable interest-free over ten years.
The Treasury’s case is disarmingly simple. This is a modest tidying-up exercise aimed at wealthy non-farmers who have been buying up land purely to shelter assets from death duties. Only about 520 estates a year will be touched, they say, and most of those belong to the sort of people who already employ clever accountants. The £520 million a year that will eventually flow into the Exchequer will help pay for schools, hospitals, and — not coincidentally — the £5 billion Environmental Land Management budget that is the Government’s flagship contribution to net zero. Fairness, in short, with a dash of greenery on the side.
Thirteen months on, the evidence suggests the Treasury has been engaging in what used to be called, in more robust times, wishful thinking.
Let’s start with the numbers the Treasury prefers not to dwell upon. A perfectly ordinary 350-acre mixed farm in the Midlands or the North is today valued at between £3.5 million and £4.8 million, even though its annual net profit often amounts to no more than £30,000–£60,000. Under the new rules an estate worth £4.8 million faces a tax bill of roughly £760,000 — £76,000 a year for ten years.(Estate value: £4.8 million. First £1 million: 100% relief (tax-free). Excess £3.8 million: 50% relief = £1.9 million taxable value. Taxable at 40% IHT = £760,000 total liability. Over 10 years interest-free = £76,000/year (no other exemptions assumed, e.g., no residence nil-rate band).
Even spread over HMRC’s ten-year instalments, that is more than most cereal or livestock enterprises actually clear. Far from targeting absentee landlords, the policy hits working farmers hardest. CenTax’s analysis, using uprated HMRC and Defra data, found that although non-farming landowners make up 64 % of all farm estates, they account for only 42 % of those that will lose full relief. Dairy units are especially vulnerable, once herds and buildings are included, 87–90 % exceed the £1 million threshold. And as the Institute for Fiscal Studies drily observed, while gifting remains theoretically possible, for farmers over seventy the seven-year rule renders it academic.
The market has not waited for the new law to take effect. In 2024, the year of the announcement, 187,500 acres of farmland were publicly marketed across Great Britain — 19 per cent more than in 2023 and the highest figure Savills has recorded in its present series. In the first half of 2025 another 99,700 acres appeared across Great Britain, 15 per cent below H1 2024 but still 5 per cent above pre-Brexit averages. Savills found that 27 per cent of sales in 2024 were due to debt and financial restructuring, a category that rose amid policy uncertainty. The Office for National Statistics logged 6,365 closures of agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses in the year to June 2025 — the worst annual total on record, coinciding with the post-Budget period
When a farm is broken up to pay a tax bill, the land does not, as a rule, pass to the bright-eyed lad next door who has been waiting for a start. It passes to whoever has cash in hand and a calculator switched on. In 2024 institutional buyers — pension funds, investment managers and natural-capital vehicles — accounted for a record 42 per cent of transactions, more than double the proportion of a decade ago. Eighteen per cent of the land publicly marketed last year was offered specifically for “arable reversion” to woodland or other environmental uses — twice the five-year average.
The explanation is almost comically neat. From April 2025 the Finance Act extended full agricultural property relief to land enrolled in government-approved environmental schemes, including carbon-credit agreements. Grow food on land valued above £1 million and the estate loses half the relief, plant trees, restore peat or sell carbon credits and the full relief is retained. The Treasury has, in effect, created a tax system that positively encourages the conversion of productive farmland into subsidised parkland. The buyers have read the signals with enthusiasm.
Thus the second stage of the process is already well advanced, land that might once have been bought by the next generation of farmers is being acquired, at a discount, by institutions whose entire business model depends on taking it out of food production. The £520 million a year the Treasury expects to raise from the inheritance-tax change forms part of the funding for the £5 billion Environmental Land Management budget for 2024–26. One is almost tempted to admire the elegance of the circle, the tax that is breaking up family farms is helping to pay for the very schemes that now make non-food uses of farmland the most tax-efficient option available.
Solar and wind farms add another layer to the same story. The government’s January 2025 consultation estimates that 9 per cent of England’s farmland must become wildlife habitats and forests by 2050 for net zero, yet Labour’s Clean Power 2030 target — 43–50 GW offshore wind and 45–47 GW solar — could require a further ~200,000 hectares for solar alone, almost all of it former prime arable land. Savills reports that 95 per cent of solar farms already sit on what was once agricultural land, with leases paying three to four times the income from crops. As inheritance-tax distress fragments holdings, this land — once feeding families — becomes panels and turbines, further hollowing out domestic production.
The Climate Change Committee’s Seventh Carbon Budget, published in February 2025, spells out the scale of what Whitehall has in mind. To meet the legally binding net-zero targets, an additional ~1.1 million hectares of woodland and ~0.9 million hectares of peatland restoration will be needed by 2050 — roughly 2–5 per cent of farmland impact — through tree planting (37,000 ha/year by 2030) and peat rewetting (45,000 ha/year from 2030), with limited bioenergy from waste/residues rather than crops. That is the official pathway. The inheritance-tax changes, by increasing the supply of land at lower prices and rewarding buyers who enrol it in carbon schemes, are delivering the first instalments of that pathway rather faster than ministers appear to have expected
The third stage — the quiet erosion of domestic food production — follows with the inevitability of night following day. Britain currently produces about 62 per cent of the food it consumes, measured on an energy basis. Fresh vegetables stand at 53 per cent, fruit at a derisory 16 per cent. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture warned in November 2025 that, due to stalled productivity growth amid population and climate pressures, total domestic production could fall by as much as 32 per cent by 2050. Even the Committee on Climate Change’s own lower-bound pathways imply a potential 10–15 per cent net loss in output from land-use shifts unless agricultural productivity suddenly discovers a gear it has never previously found.
The fourth and final stage arrives, as these things always do, at the supermarket checkout. Food price inflation was still running at 4.9 per cent for food and non-alcoholic beverages in October 2025, according to the Office for National Statistics, up from 4.5 per cent in September, with contributions from staples such as milk, meat and vegetables adding to the monthly rise. The British Retail Consortium’s mid-range projection is that ongoing cost pressures, including higher employer taxes and packaging levies, will add between £400 and £600 a year to the average household food bill by the end of 2025. That is £33 to £50 a month taken out of every family’s disposable income.
The Treasury, by contrast, will collect roughly £18 per UK household per year in additional revenue from the reform. The arithmetic is not complicated, for every pound the Exchequer gains, households stand to lose between twenty-two and thirty-three pounds at the till, based on projected food inflation impacts. A policy sold as a modest measure of fairness has turned out to be one of the more regressive elements of recent fiscal changes — from ordinary shoppers to the owners of carbon credits and rewilded estates.
None of this is to pretend that the inheritance-tax change is the sole cause of the pressures on British farming. Input costs, weather and the withdrawal of direct payments have all played their part. But the evidence of the past year — the surge in marketed acreage, the shift in buyer profile, the explicit marketing of land for non-food uses — leaves little room for doubt that the reform is acting as a powerful accelerant, channelling productive land into the very environmental schemes that the tax revenue itself helps to fund.
There was, of course, an alternative on the table. In February 2025 the National Farmers’ Union presented the Treasury with a fully costed clawback model, keep the existing 100 per cent relief, but impose full 40 per cent IHT if the inherited assets are sold or cease to be used for farming within seven years — exactly the system used in France and Germany. The NFU’s modelling showed this would raise a central £554 million a year, with a range of £422–£686 million, while sparing genuine family farms the upfront bill that is now breaking them. The Treasury rejected it without explanation.
Two parliamentary committees — the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Welsh Affairs — have called for the changes to be delayed until at least 2027 so that proper impact assessments can be carried out. As of today no such delay has been announced.
Tragedies like John Charlesworth’s are the human toll, the bill at the till is the national one. The question that remains is not whether the inheritance-tax reform is accelerating the transfer of farmland from food to carbon — the land-market data and the buyer behaviour already prove that it is. The question is whether Labour truly believes that £520 million a year is a price worth paying for a policy that will, over time, add many times that sum to the annual food bill of every household in the country.
Next time you’re in the supermarket queue watching the bill hit £50 or £70 more than it did two years ago, ask yourself who is really paying for Net Zero.
A Yorkshire sheep farm that has fed Britain for three generations — or a pension fund ticking its ESG boxes and a Gulf sovereign wealth fund polishing its green halo? The Treasury has chosen.
That is the quiet, under-reported price of Rachel Reeves’s reform, one Yorkshire farmer tragically dead, thousands more ruined, and every family in Britain paying more for food so the Treasury can fund its Net Zero fantasy.
The Rational Forum is a reader-supported publication. If you like our work please share, comment or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber, failing that we will always graciously accept a coffee to help keep us going.
This article (The Net Zero Death Duty) was created and published by The Rationals and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: The Rationals
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply